Theingroup presentation-new
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Theingroup presentation-new

on

  • 407 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
407
Views on SlideShare
339
Embed Views
68

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 68

http://theingroup.wordpress.com 68

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Bring the actual survey they filled out and hold it up to jog their memory.
  • Ask Bryce if I should even include the moral words.
  • Run this by Bryce: Good variation and scattered data suggests words represent a strong mix of positive/negative emotion and “humanness”

Theingroup presentation-new Theingroup presentation-new Presentation Transcript

  • INFRAHUMANIZATION
    • Multiculturalism and infrahumanization
    • In today's multicultural society, ethnic minorities may be infrahumanized as they are perceived as not being socially integrated.
    • Research has shown that Roma Gypsies are infrahumanized across Europe. (Perez, Chulvi & Alonso, 2001)
    • Underlying aim: To examine the source of this infrahumanization between majority and ethnic minorities, and apply to it the current political gridlock both in Congress and in the blogosphere.
    Process by which group members tend to associate more human attributes to members of the ingroup than the outgroup
  • “ We’re humans; they’re animals!”
    • Primary & secondary emotions (Leyens et al)
    • Primary emotions are common to animals and humans (e.g. anger, surprise, fear, and disgust), while secondary emotions are exclusively human (e.g. nostalgia).
    • Primary emotions attributed to both in-group and out-group
    • Secondary emotions to in-group only
  • Research question
    • Research question : Does computer-mediated communication (CMC) between members of opposing groups lead to greater evidence of infrahumanization than face-to-face communication?
  • Infrahumanization
    • Process by which group members tend to associate more human attributes to members of the ingroup than the outgroup
      • Primary Emotions: anger, fear, sadness, joy
      • Secondary emotions: sorrow, admiration, fondness
    Effect of infrahumanization is diminished when the outgroup is established as individuals rather than group members
  • Infrahumanization
    • H1: more infrahumanization toward outgroup than ingroup
    • H2: less infrahumanization when describing individual partner than group
  • SIDE
    • When social identity is salient, and members are visually anonymous, partners relate on the basis of the group.
      • More likely to stereotype
      • More likely to conform to norms
      • Overattribution
  • Infrahumanization and CMC
    • H3a: more infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing outgroup
    • H3b: less infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing ingroup
  • Pilot Data: Word Matrix
    • Survey of 48 words we conducted in class to help us determine the status of each word used in the actual study.
  • Pilot Data: The Survey
  • Primary vs. Secondary
    • Looked at 3 Categories of Words*:
      • Animal/Human Words
        • Examples: Educated, Civilized, Criminal
      • Emotion Words
        • Examples: Hopeful, Optimistic, Disenchanted
      • Moral Words
        • Examples: Virtuous, Righteous, Praiseworthy
    • *We tested 12 words in each category plus an additional 12 filler words to arrive at 48 total.
  • Humanness vs.Valence
  • Methodology
    • Grade Obama Admin (e.g A+, B, C+, etc.)
    • CMC Instant Messaging vs. Face-To-Face
    • Democrats/Liberals v. Republicans/Conservatives
      • Group identity made salient
      • Eliciting of Emotions
      • Evaluation
  • Methodology
    • Word Choice Paradigm
    • Choose words that describe outgroup
    • Choose words that describe partner
  • Preliminary Results
    • For our purposes today, eight words matter
      • Uniquely human emotions:
        • hopeful, optimistic, resentful, disenchanted
      • Uniquely human descriptors:
        • civilized, educated, folksy, criminal
  • Preliminary Results
    • Counting these words created the “uniquely human” score we are using for this study
    • High scores indicate high ratings of uniquely human qualities
  • Preliminary Results
    • Evidence of infrahumanization? Yes.
    H1: more infrahumanization toward outgroup than ingroup H2: less infrahumanization when describing individual partner than group
  • Preliminary Results
    • How people viewed their partners
    H3a: more infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing outgroup H3b: less infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing ingroup
  • Preliminary Results
    • How people viewed their ingroup
  • Preliminary Results
    • How people described the outgroup
  • Preliminary Results | Trends
    • Whom we talk to influences how “human” we rate groups
  • Preliminary Results | Trends
    • Medium matters, especially for intergroup situations
    Two participants after talking face to face: “ We’re friends now.” One participant after talking via CMC: “ Was I even talking to a real person?”
  • Preliminary Results
    • Limitations
      • Sample size (n=15, so far)
      • 10 Minute Time
      • Party balance:
        • 13 Democrats
        • 2 Republicans (3 actually, but one resulted in spoiled data that was discarded)
  • Future Research/Analysis
    • Far-reaching implications in the way we interact as a society.
    • Ensuing biases - “ us " & " them ”
    • Human as a social identity
    • How did valence pan out in this study?
    • What is the underlying role of morality judgments in infrahumanization?
  • Contact Information
    • http://theingroup.wordpress.com/